::::Thanks again [[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]]! I've downloaded the image and am currently viewing it in Windows Photo Viewer. I have another question regarding this (sorry for all the questions, btw! It's just this is more complicated than I thought it would be): Would using the snipping tool be another good way to crop the image? Or would something like paint.net be better? Thanks again! [[User:Twyfan714|Twyfan714]] ([[User talk:Twyfan714|talk]]) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks again [[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]]! I've downloaded the image and am currently viewing it in Windows Photo Viewer. I have another question regarding this (sorry for all the questions, btw! It's just this is more complicated than I thought it would be): Would using the snipping tool be another good way to crop the image? Or would something like paint.net be better? Thanks again! [[User:Twyfan714|Twyfan714]] ([[User talk:Twyfan714|talk]]) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::It makes no difference at all which software tool you use to crop, {{U|Twyfan714}}. Do it in whatever way you find easiest. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 02:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::It makes no difference at all which software tool you use to crop, {{U|Twyfan714}}. Do it in whatever way you find easiest. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 02:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again everyone! Sorry if I asked so many questions! [[User:Twyfan714|Twyfan714]] ([[User talk:Twyfan714|talk]]) 02:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,I'm curious as to how a topic becomes listed on a disambiguation page when no article has been written about it. I'm looking to add an article about such a topic, but I'm wondering if its already been attempted and taken down due to lack of notability. Is there anyway to see if this is the case? Thanks
Pbbalduc (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising website. Your attempt at promotion has been deleted, and you have been given advice at your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for review of an article
Hi
I just edited an article which had multiple issues. I tried my best to address some of these issues. The last time the article was reviewed was in 2012. How do I ask wikipedia editors to review the article since I made some changes?
Hello, I'm working on editing a page about a musician who has done some impressive things that I think are worth including on his page. He has played for the pope, at Live Aid in 1985, and for President Obama at the White House. The only problem is, the only proof that he was at these events and performing are photographs and videos. Being a percussionist, he wasn't always given credit as being part of the performances on websites and in articles. Can anyone provide some guidance on how to properly cite the existence of someone in a youtube video or photograph? Or...will this information just have to be left out forever because no one wrote an article about it with his name in it? Thank you for any help you can offer. MortPanteau (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MortPanteau. An interesting question. It seems to me that these images or videos will be primary sources: the guidance for primary sources says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". So as long as the image has been published by a reliable source (which would have to state that the image was taken at the event in question), and as long as it is clear and not in doubt that the image showed the person in question, I would say that it could serve as a reference for the fact of his having been there. But it would not be adequate for any interpretation or conclusion (eg if the photo did not show the musician playing, I don't think it would be a valid source for saying that he had played at the event). --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ColinFine, thank you so much for the information! Now, the million dollar question- how do I cite a primary source? Just like any other citation? Again, thank you for your help!!MortPanteau (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everybody! I am currently thinking about adding an image to an article, but I have a few questions. First of all, the image is from Wikimedia. I'm assuming that this is okay and not a copyright violation, but I want to make 100% sure that it's okay to use it before I upload it. Next, I want to crop the image as it has only one person in it that I want. How exactly do I do this, and once I crop it, how do I upload it? Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good, an easy image question, Twyfan714. Any image you find on Wikimedia Commons can be used anywhere for any purpose, as long as you credit the image properly. That includes derivative works, such as cropped and otherwise edited versions. Download the highest resolution copy available to your computer, crop it as you see fit, and then upload the cropped version to Wikimedia Commons with a new file name. Credit the original file name and original photographer, and all will be well. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hey Twyfan714. I assume by Wikimedia you mean the Wikimedia Commons? ([the] Wikimedia [Foundation] is actually the organization that hosts all projects, all Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikispecies, etc.) If so, all files there are can be used here freely (so long as they aren't undiscovered copyvios but don't worry about that). They can also be used here natively, so you don't need to upload it here; to use a Commons image just place image syntax just as you would for a local image. But of course, if you download an image and then crop it you will need to upload it, but upload it back to the Commons, making sure you provide attribution back to the original image. As for how to crop it, there are many different image manipulation programs you can use. You could, for example, use GIMP (which is what I use – poorly, and see How to Crop an Image Using Gimp) or Paint.NET or Adobe Photoshop, or a host of others. Then go to the Commons and click "Upload file" under the participation menu on the left hand side of the page. If you get stuck somewhere along the line, come back here and we'll be glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit and Cullen328, it helps. Unfortunately, I am still slightly confused. I'm attempting to add an image to The Wonder Years article of Fred Savage. I am considering using an image entitled File:Ken with Fred Savage (253706301).jpg (I am not putting the image itself here, because it is VERY big), possibly in a new cast members section, and crop it so the image just features him. However, when I searched his name on Wikimedia Commons, this image did not turn up. I had to look at a category page with his name on it in order to find this image. Two questions in regards to this: 1) Why didn't this image turn up when I searched his name? 2) Is this a red flag of any kind for me about using this image? Thanks!!! Twyfan714 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Twyfan714: Yes, it looks like that article should have just such an image. The fact that the image is big is not an issue if you wanted to use it as is. You can change the size an image appears easily. The basic image syntax is [[File:Name.abc|thumb|number px|caption text]] In "number px", you can choose the size by playing with the number such as "200 px", "300 px". Much more information is available in the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
Anyway, regarding cropping it and then uploading that cropped image, the only restriction in the copyright license is that you must give credit to the author of the image on your re-upload, so you would click edit on the existing image, copy the author field, and then use that on your upload, i.e., [http://www.flickr.com/people/42274165@N00 Alan Light]; provide other details from there and state that you cropped it from that original image, linking its name. I don't know why the image didn't come up when you searched for it – it did come up when I did the same search; it was the fifth image displayed for me. Nope, no red flag:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Fuhghettaboutit! I've downloaded the image and am currently viewing it in Windows Photo Viewer. I have another question regarding this (sorry for all the questions, btw! It's just this is more complicated than I thought it would be): Would using the snipping tool be another good way to crop the image? Or would something like paint.net be better? Thanks again! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't my submission supposed to be in the Sandbox. The only way that I can access it is to go back to old Talk transcript where it is hyperlinked.Wayner27 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wayner27 and welcome to The Teahouse. You can also access your submission through your contributions. This can be accessed by clicking on "Contributions" at the top of any English Wikipedia page when you are signed in. At least I think that's how it works; my preferences are set differently than most people's.
I'm not familiar with this, but if you are actually having a problem, the people who can solve it are at WP:VPT. If you are not having a problem and just don't know how to use the feature, perhaps someone else can help.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·20:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar question about a lock symbol like the post below. I'm trying to link to an outside source (The Iowa Women's Archives) source 11 and a lock appears next to the link:
Welcome to the Teahouse, UIKaren. In this case, the lock symbol indicates that the website uses the HTTPS security protocol, and is therefore a "safer than average" website. I am not aware of a way to remove the symbol, which is useful for our readers who may be concerned about the security of websites they visit. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the answer to the earlier question said, the padlock is indicating the use of the "https:" prefix. It can be removed by removing the "https:" prefix, as in this edit. No, that padlock symbol isn't related to Wikipedia:Protection_policy. Pages protected under that policy will show a padlock of appropriate colour at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have reviewed a Wikipedia article about "same references", particularly not listing out an entire reference more than once, using a ref code. I could not get it to work. It still listed out the entire reference. Could someone please help? Also, what is the difference between a reference list and a reference section? Thanks. Wayner27 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wayner, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you're talking about a particular reference multiple times throughout an article? Wikipedia:REFERENCE#Repeated_citations has a nice guide to doing this. Essentially, the first time you place a reference, you use the following syntax:
<ref name="name">Text of the citation</ref>
Every time you want to use the same reference after that, you can just use the following:
<ref name="name" />
Let us know if you need more guidance. As for a reference section/list, they're referring to the same thing. The reference section of an article is the section that contains a list of references. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can hit the edit link alongside the section heading for your question, then type your reply below the message to wish to reply, indenting by preceding your message by one more colon than the message to wish you are replying. Alternatively you could put a message on the editor's user talk page by using the "talk" link in the editor's signature and adding a new section; in the latter case it would be helpful to provide a wikilink to your original question to put your later message into context. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does the "lock symbol" that sometimes appears next to a link mean?
I wanted to try and report the user above for persistent vandalism, although I'm unsure if he's already been banned. A "lock" symbol also appears next to his contributions link.
Ah, well I now know he's already been banned (I had to check his talk page, which I had failed to notice existed). Still, what does the lock symbol mean though? :) Flipandflopped (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the IP user has not been banned. Wikipedia had a distinction between blocked and banned; the IP was blocked temporarily, the block has now expired, but the IP has not edited again since then. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed several articles where the lead was awkwardly trying to use the title exactly as it's written. For example: say there was an article called "The murder of John Smith" and the lead reads "The murder of John Smith is a situation involving the murder of John Smith" or something silly like that. There are times when I think it reads better to just say "John Smith was murdered on...". Is there any rule on this particular thing? Bali88 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have chosen the wrong option in Twinkle, Brandon, as I see no sign of the legal threat. But of course the warning is a bit academic as the IP hasn't posted for more than 2 years. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tony Holkham: Because the message is so old, I think the message should have been removed without warning. But if it were recent, I think {{uw-agf1}} (not assuming good faith) is the most appropriate template message. (I use Twinkle.) In this case, though, I think the comment should not have have been removed, and the unregistered user should not have been warned. It would have been a good opportunity to introduce the copyright and similar policies. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-automated warning messages are exceptionally useful for those editors protecting the encyclopedia against obvious vandalism committed very recently. I truly appreciate the work that such editors do. But a personalized message, written in response to an intelligent editor's genuine assessment of a particular situation, is the best possible form of communication, especially for out-of-the-ordinary situations. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Anon126: I am a bit confused by your response. First you say "I think the message should have been removed", then later you say "I think the comment should not have have been removed" (my emphases). What am I missing? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do we establish a consensus on Wikipedia? I'm currently involved in a discussion on the MOS to add a policy. It seems that everyone in the discussion agrees on what to add, but there are only 4 people in total involved in the discussion on the talk page. Is it ok to call it a consensus when there are so few people discussing it? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eventhorizon51. Going by past experience, most discussions looking for consensus on a topic usually go about 7 days. My best advice, give it 7 full days so everybody has a chance to either "speak now or forever hold their peace". Vjmlhds(talk)23:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More time is better...and changing "policy" based on a 4 person discussion is likely to be questioned once the change is made. --Onorem (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style debate in question has to do with a subset of that guideline having to do with films. Though this specific MOS is important, it is not as likely to receive in-depth attention as revisions to the main Manual of Style. I skimmed the debate, and it seems like a thoughtful, high-level discussion. You could always send a neutral message to other editors involved with editing film-related articles. MichaelQSchmidt comes to mind. 06:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Cullen328Let's discuss it07:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished my first translation from Swedish of a major article. It is still in my sandbox. It is the first draft and I have numerous questions about things in the article and some about formatting.
Should I submit it and by that start up a discussion about it, or should I leave it in the sandbox for a while, write my questions on the sandbox talk page and invite others to help me edit the article while in the sandbox?W.carter (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi W.carter and welcome to the Teahouse! You have obviously put a lot of work into this translation, well done! As you say, it does need some attention, and if you like I will copyedit your draft tomorrow and fix up some other Wikipedia style issues. Philg88 ♦talk17:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ever so much! That would be very much appreciated. Since I am a newbie there are so many thing I do not know yet about how such an article should be presented in Wikipedia. There are some concerns I would like to point out, but instead of littering the Teahouse with them I will post them on my sandbox talk page.W.carter (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to use a copyrighted image
I wanted to use this image from the National Geographic web site in a Wikipedia article. I have never added an image to an article. I sent a message to NatGeo asking whether they would object to that use of their image, explaining that it would entail making a copy of the image rather than simply linking to it. I received this reply:
Your email was forwarded to me regarding usage of a map produced by National Geographic Maps.
We are giving you permission to use this map.
Let us know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
Regina Peregoy
Office Manager-Maps
Given the above, would I be within WP policy to use this image? If so, can you point me to relevant Help pages about how to do that? Mandruss (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Hey Mandruss. Unfortunately, the query you made, though a display of great initiative, was not the right type of inquiry and the permission is not effective. Copyright is a thorny area and often counterintuitive at first blush. For your typical website, the permission to use would indeed be all that was needed (if transmitted by the third party in a verifiable manner, not by your say-so). But at Wikipedia we strive to only feature content that is free for re-use by our end users. So everything (not being used under a claim of fair use, which I'll get to) is licensed by us for re-use under a highly unrestricted license, allowing our readers to take our content and use it and modify it, even for commercial purposes. The dual license are the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL.
What this means in application is that permission for our use is not what we seek. Rather, what we need is for the person or entity who owns non-free copyrighted content to free up its restrictive copyright to the world; to change it to a free copyright license that is compatible with our licenses.
We do allow use of copyrighted material under a claim of fair use, if it meets the stringent standards set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but a map will rarely meet these requirements because it is always possible a free equivalent either exists or can be created (that is, it fails WP:NFCC#1). In that regard, because this is a map type image, you can create such a map yourself (in the universal sense; I don't know if you have the skills to do so [I personally do not]). But, if you don't, you might try making a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, for taking the time to give me such a thorough response. But I'm suddenly feeling much less desire to use the image...:) Mandruss (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been writing a quite short article to explain the definition of the word Flagship in regard to an international organization that I among others around the world run called The Flagship Movement. After writing the article and editing the existing disambiguation page of this word by adding our definition into it, I received a message saying that my article will be deleted due to "Non-notable certification". I have been trying to understand this concept but as I am completely new to Wikipedia as an author I feel that I am a bit overwhelmed to say the least. Can someone please help me with this and show me how and where I can state my case for the existence of my article?Captain Greenbeard (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Captain Greenbeard. Basically, it looks on the surface like the article didn't have any references to show notability. The article needs to have references to show that the organization is well known and is of broad interest. Vjmlhds(talk)23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG is what you want. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". Also, I will place some info on conflict-of-interest on your talk page. --NeilNtalk to me01:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you archive things?
Occasionally, I'll see an article where the talk page is so long and cluttered with resolved discussions from years ago that it's difficult to read. Then occasionally, I'll see things "archived". Is that a matter of just deleting things or is that a separate process? Can we delete things off talk pages if they are no longer needed? Bali88 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Bali88: Deleting is okay; old discussions can be found in the page history. However, archiving is preferred, especially on article talk pages. To do this manually, simply copy and paste old discussions into subpages called /Archive 1, /Archive 2, and so on, and add a template such as {{archives}} to the top of the main discussion page. (How to archive a talk page has more detailed information.)
I have seen poor people on wiki being investigated for sock puppet. Could you just tell me what the hell is a sock puppet. Redsfan21 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redsfan21 and welcome to the Teahouse. A sock puppet is a user who uses multiple account for improper multiple purpose they often try attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. To read more about what suckpuppetry is you can go to Wikipedia:Sock puppetryMiszatomic (Talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How to create another page for a person who is in different field
If a page with the same name exist already how can we create another page as the field of person is different and i don't want to edit the existing page of a person as both are popular in their respective fieldsNovoiceplus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Novoiceplus: Hi Novoiceplus. Please tell us the name of the name of the existing page and the topic of the intended article. In very general terms, this is a disambiguation question but what to do depends on various factors. For example, if the existing page is the primary topic then it should remain at the main title and the new title should have a disambiguated name, possibly through natural disambiguation by including a middle initial or name, or possibly through a parenthetically disambiguated title, coupled with a hatnote on the primary topic's article. If there is no primary topic, then the main title should be occupied by a disambiguation page and both pages should take disambiguated names. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Article titles generally, and especially their subsections at WP:PRECISION, WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS among others. I have presented this as a black and white, two option scenario but this does not cover all possibilities that arise. Again, if you supply the specifics, advice can be tailored. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DridsObrien. Album covers are for the most part copyrighted, and therefore not free use. Wikipedia as a rule shies away from using non-free use pictures and logos. For future reference, there is a tab on the side of the page called "Upload file". Follow the instructions after hitting it to upload images, but as I said before, it's best to avoid non-free use pictures. Vjmlhds(talk)20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same guideline applies, for example, to classic singles released as 45 rpm records. In that case, a photo of the record label of the single side is permitted. But it wouldn't apply to articles about individual album tracks, even those that became notable hits, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing statements from articles
According to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, people may not remove well sourced information they believe isn't true. I'm wondering if the reason is because in almost all cases, the editor was wrong and didn't believe the truth and would be removing true information without realizing it. I'm wondering if the same rule applies in cases where it's very clear that if somebody believe's something, it's true and all doubt about it would come from thinking the editor is lying rather than from not believing the truth. For example, if I saw the Scarborough RT article saying, 'No RT train has ever derailed' then later I saw one derail, could I remove the sentence 'No RT train has ever derailed' and write in the edit summary 'I saw one derail.' I think the rule about verifiability applies to articles but doesn't apply to edit summaries. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No; if the statement that no train has ever derailed is supported by reliable sources, then you should not remove it based on your personal observations, as that would constitute original research, which is prohibited at Wikipedia. Though it may seem silly, what you should do is wait until the train derailment has been reported in reliable sources, then cite those sources when you remove the statement. Otherwise, how can we be sure that you're telling the truth about what you saw? Writ Keeper⚇♔17:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't actually happen. I only posed a hypothetical situation because I figured future editors might be in a similar situation and thought it would be useful for them to know whether they are allowed to remove a sentence. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this hypothetical situation, would it be appropriate for the editor to record his personal observations on the Talk page, to make other editors aware that the statement is questionable? They may spot coverage in media which our hypothetical editor misses. If the evidence becomes stronger, should they perhaps add a "disputed" tag to direct people to the Talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronk Oz (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say on a talk page "The article says X, and has good references; but I think it should be Y because ...; does anybody know of any sources which argue against X?" I'm much less sure that you should put a 'disputed' tag on in this case. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will give a very specific example, and it relates to an edit I made to a specific article, Black Bear Diner, only a few minutes ago. There was a statement in that article until my edit that the restaurant chain does not serve alcohol, referenced to a review of their Redmond, Washington location. Last night, we ate at their Vallejo, California location. My wife and son both had a Corona beer, and I had a glass of Chardonnay. So, I just edited the article to say that some locations serve alcoholic beverages while others don't. I think this is a small but legitimate example of "ignore all rules", which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and I think that the article (and the encyclopedia) is better for it. I am interested in the thoughts of other editors. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what it is. I frequently edit crime articles and I'm constantly arguing over the language to describe someone to be convicted of a crime. I favor language like "this person was convicted of murder" vs. "this person is a murderer" because one can be proven and the other can be debated. Even if the proof is really, really good, there's still that chance that they could be innocent. Like Cullen's example, if your experiences have demonstrated that one source is inaccurate and another source is accurate, I think you can go ahead and use the one you know to be accurate. If there is really no way to verify which is accurate, figure out if you really need it. If you need it for whatever reason, cite both and say the literal truth is unknown. However, if only you know something to be true and every reliable source says something else, it's probably not right for wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
photo copyright-cannot find the source
I'm kind of a newbie to editing.
There is a bio page of a favorite actress which has no image of her. I would like to upload a photo but I cannot tell if its under any sort of copyright. I tied to look up the source and that provides nothing. Its a formal portrait like you would find in a press package. Can I upload it under Creative Commons or what??
thanks much!!
Utnijlj (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you cannot find a source you should not use it. As that could bring Wikipedia into legal troubles. Which is a very big no. I suggest you find another image that is allowed. Or try to find the source for a little while longer. NathanWubs (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the actress still alive?
Incidentally but separately, even if the actress is still alive, if you were able to find a justification similar to the one here then the image could be used. That's a publicity photo that was taken a long-ish time ago and never released as "free" as we understand it - of course it requires knowing the source or at least physically possessing the original promotional material. In this case the latter, and also I quote in this case "It is unclear as to whether the press-materials were distributed by Qualis Productions (the company that produced the series), 20th Century Fox Television (the company that co-produced the series), or ABC Television (the network that aired the series)", but still permissible for the other reasons given there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help a newish user properly add images?
An example of native vegetationUser:Wood Geek has been adding content on soil composition to dozens (hundreds?) of US geographical articles. The information is quite useful, but it's added in a way that it challenges readability and breaks formatting. (For examples, see charts at: 1, 2, 3) Could someone please provide him with some tips on how to better add the info? Thanks. 70.134.229.138 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem but don't know how to solve it. Here is a proposed solution I came up with:
Native vegetation based on NRCS soils information shows:[1]
^Nelson, Steven (2011). Savanna Soils of Minnesota. Minnesota: Self. ISBN 978-0-615-50320-2.
What form should an article about an A-road in the UK take?
I've been editing an article A478 road which is essentially a list. I see that other roads such as A477 road are mainly prose. Is there a guideline on the Wiki-preferred format? My personal view is that the list format is clearer for this sort of article. Thanks! Tony Holkham (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The old references were different from what I am used to, with lots of long quotations from the US constitution etc. I'm not sure whether that approach is good or bad, but just deleting everyhing, including the Reflist, seems a bit heavy-handed. I should mention that the Talk page does not appear to be used; there is only one comment there, from 2010.
I would be grateful if somebody would take a look at the current (id=605983553) and previous (id=598362631) versions, and advise whether that edit should be reverted. Or is there some better way to deal with this? Gronk Oz (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb that I always keep is this. If someone just blanks a whole section that mostly means vandalism. But of course you should check to make if this is the case. In this case it seemed blatant vandalism to me so I undid what was done. NathanWubs (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that the comment "(Tag: section blanking)" was not an edit summary added by the IP editor but a warning to watching editors added by the edit filter software, see Wikipedia:Tags. As NathanWubs implied, such tags are often a useful pointer to vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, also one more tip. If you see something that looks like vandalism. Then check the user contributions after you are done with reverting. As a lot of vandals like to spread their vandalism around. Sometimes on pages that are almost never checked. Which can result in an act of vanadalism being in an article for a long time. So be vigilant NathanWubs (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thanks. I have not had to deal with vandalism before, so it helps to have this perspective. I just checked this case, and there are no other "Contributions" for that IP. Of course, IP addresses change, but it's worth checking. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to re-emphase NathanWub's important point "But of course you should check to make if this is the case". The most common cause of section blanking (or entire article blanking) not being vandalism is outlined in the early part of Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, and the issues mentioned there - WP:BLP - are a lot more important than just some ordinary vandalism happening to an article. It's well worth reading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One extra tip. I notice that you had earlier included in your question the markup [[Category:Pages_with_missing_references_list]], and subsequently realised that this didn't display, but it put this help page into the category referred to. In a revision to your question you removed the wiki markup, but the easy way of avoiding this problem is to precede the category name by a colon, thus [[:Category:Pages with missing references list]], which is rendered as the link Category:Pages with missing references list (so I've taken the liberty of making that edit to your question to include the link). The same technique of a preceding colon is used for inter-wiki language links. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can I see exactly what changes are made to an article?
When someone have been kind enough to correct an article I´m working on, how can I see exactly what changes have been made? As a newbie I have to learn and sometimes small and subtle changes are hard to see.W.carter (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: One more thing you can do is go to the Gadgets tab in your preferences and select "wikEdDiff, improved diff view between article versions..." I find its diff view a vast improvement over the native one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have this but sometimes even that's not enough. Sometimes it looks like major changes have been made because somehow the software doesn't show exactly what changed. It seems to show that large sections of the article were deleted and new large sections added, when in fact only a few words were changed.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·20:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this typically happens when a block of text is moved. The differencing software detects it as a deletion and an insertion, and it is then difficult to see, sometimes, if any text in the moved block was also changed. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hatnote question
"Random article" brought me to Modern Montessori School (which is in Jordan), and I googled for more information. There turns out to be something else called Modern Montessori International, in England, which as far as I can tell is entirely unrelated to it. This, ISTM, could easily be a source of confusion. I wanted to add a hatnote about the difference, but there's nothing in WP:HAT about disambiguating the topic of an article from something with a very similar name that
doesn't already have an article and
you're not about to add an article about
I boldly went and used the generic {{hatnote}} to add
Hey Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:HAT actually does have just what you need, located at Wikipedia:HAT#Distinguish. I've gone ahead and changed your hatnote to the proper template for you. The page can definitely be a pain to go through, but searching the page using CTRL + F often helps to find what you're looking for. As for linking to other articles on the English Wikipedia, you can use wikilinks instead of making an external link to the article. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs06:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
would have worked just fine with my external link.
But as you said, Wikipedia:Hatnote#External links says Don't do that. So there's no acceptable way to warn a user "This page may not be about the thing you're looking for, but we don't have a page about that thing". That seems wrong, don't you think? --Thnidu (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thnidu: Good question - if the subject isn't notable enough to have an article, then I imagine it's not worth mentioning in a hatnote in the first place. If a subject should have an article but doesn't, the only option then would be to create an article first, and then link it. Currently hatlinks should not link to not-existent articles. I personally would support placing redlinks in hatnotes to promote article creation, but that's not the current consensus I suppose. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello All, Please read and tell me if this is ready for submission. I have had a lot of trouble meeting the guidelines for this.
IPC Information Systems Inc., is a provider of American voice trading systems to financial companies including investments, hedge funds and investments managers (1). The company’s written aim is to deliver “unified solutions that support collaborative voice trading, real-time electronic trading and market data connectivity” (2) is a proprietary managed private IP network (2) to financial market participants. IPC provides and services voice communication systems that facilitate operations within the financial industry.
The firm is known for creating and updating trading turrets – specialized, multi-line, multi-speaker communications devices used by traders. By providing these services to more than 600 financial services it was voted highest among the top competitors (3). Turrets can have access to hundreds of lines and allow traders to monitor multiple connections simultaneously to maintain communication with counterparties, liquidity providers, intermediaries and exchanges (4). Companies similar to IPC, include BT and Orange Business Services (6).
An effective desktop will provide multiple market data screens while giving the option to using instant messaging for colleague communications while checking on incoming calls. IPC Systems created services to better manage internal communication. (7) IPC Systems launched their voice recording management (VRM) service which is meant to help companies with their voice recording compliance efforts and reduce operational risks of managing the system and improve flexibility. (8)
Reference List
1. "IPC Systems Rings The NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Bell", Nasdaq, 31 July 2013. Retrieved on 10 June 2013.
2. Fangqing, Wang. "Turret Maker IPC Gains Ground in Asia", Securities Technology Monitor, 26 March 2007. Retrieved on June 2013.
3. IPC Named Best Trading Turret Provider." International Finance for Global Investors. Institutional Investor, 30 June 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
4. "Capturing Traders’ Hearts and Minds with Practical, Beautiful, Foolproof Design", Frog Design, Retrieved on 10 June 2013
5. Beck, John. "Trading Floor Makeover", 01 July 2009. Retrieved on 10 June 2013.
6. Anderson, Victor. "Best Trading Turret: IPC." Www.waterstechnology.com. Waters, 23 Aug. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
7. "Trading Newsflashes: Silver Lake Partners Acquires IPC Information Systems From GS Partners for $800 Million", Wall Street and Technology, 03 August 2006. Retrieved on 10 June 2013
8. Jawoski, Alexa. "Merrill Installs IPC VoIP Trading Turrets", Securities Technology Monitor, 19 November 2007. Retrieved on 10 June 2013
Sure. I've put the review comments back on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IPC Systems. You have enough independent sources. Sources from industry publications are fine as long as they are reporting or announcing awards, not just reprinting press releases. The article reads like a sales brochure, but it should be easy to rewrite it into encyclopedia form. Start out with a sentence like:
IPC Systems is an American company headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey that provides trading communication systems for the financial services industry. They are known for the creation of the trading turret.
Next put the company history. Company press releases are OK as a source for facts. Here is where to explain what a trading turret is. And the introduction of the VoIP version. Thanks for including an explanation of what the company's product does. Many editors don't include that in company articles. An encyclopedia article shows how the company developed over time.
Leave out marketing language like: The company’s written aim is to deliver "unified solutions that support collaborative voice trading, real-time electronic trading and market data connectivity."
Hi. I submitted an new article for review on March 22, 2014. Could someone please tell me how long it may take until I get a response? Thanks.
Wayne Wayner27 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the age distribution of the pending queue at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. While you are waiting for review, you might improve your chance of it being reviewed more quickly if you tidy up your references. Have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners, and particularly at Same reference used more than once. Apart from having multiple separate entries for the same reference in the list which {{reflist}} has given you, you also seem to have listed each reference again separately (and unnecessarily) in the references section itself. It also isn't clear why you removed the accessdate parameter from your citations; it is a useful aid in retrieving information from archives later if the url becomes stale. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. Thanks for your response. I've tried to clean up one reference entry so far per the instructions under "same reference used more than once" but it didn't work. It still lists the full citation. I don't understand what you mean in your statement "Apart from having multiple separate entries for the same reference in the list which {{reflist}} has given you, you also seem to have listed each reference again separately (and unnecessarily) in the references section itself." Is the reflist the numbered list at the bottom? Is the "references section itself" the bibliographic list at the bottom? I did not type the bibliographic list. The reason the access date parameter was removed from citations is because another Wikipedia editor told me to. I had inadvertently put in [today's date] in the access date field in the wizard but no longer wanted that date to appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayner27 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the accessdate parameter is concerned, the editor was answering your question as to how to stop it showing the retrieval date; he wasn't suggesting that you should do so. I can't see where you have tried to combine references used more than once; can you give us a diff? The references section is the section that says:
==References==
{{reflist}}
You don't need to put details of references in there if you have supplied the details between <ref>...</ref> tags at the place where the reference is used. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not called what it should be called?
This stutch of Wikipedia has a ridiculous name now. What the devil happened?
Specifically, why was the name changed? Now it sounds like the name of some organisation that produces tea.
Hello, Tharthan. Please explain what it is that you think has a ridiculous name. I don't know what "stutch" means - it looks like a typo to me, but I can't think what it might be intended to be. --ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about why Wikipedia:Tea Room is not called what it is supposed to be. I haven't been here in a while, hence my confusion. Could you explain?
@PrimeHunter There used to be a Tea House area of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia:Tea Room redirects to here. Please explain.
@Thnidu Ander-Saxon? I've never heard that term. In any case, due to Old English being the earliest form of the English language, I find it perfectly all right to continue the terms that have been lost during its time period. And, as a Germanic linguist purist, I prefer to use ceunde (native) Germanic terms when I am able (though I mostly just wish to use less Latin derived terms [that is, unless they are Germanic in origin or come from Celtic or something like that. Well, even though "piece" might be from Celtic, I'm still not a big fan of it...]) I'm not against loanwords, I'm just against the perpetuation of Latin in English, as that's not fair to English. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Wikipedia:Teahouse is the only Wikipedia feature which has been called Tea House. There has never been a feature called Tea Room. The redirect at Wikipedia:Tea Room was created after Wikipedia:Teahouse and has always redirected to it.[1] It's common to create redirects for similar names so users can find a page without entering the exact title in the search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kristen Stewart Charity work
I tried to edit Kristen's wikipedia page to include her various charity work but I received a message that it was protected and I couldnt edit. Here is the message plus the sources.
Kristen Stewart- Charity work. In
November 2009 actress Kristen
Stewart particated in a JDRF walk to
cure diabetis. Kristen Stewart
has participated in several charities
which include her donations to
shoe revolt in aid of the fight against
domestic sex trafficking.
Kristen Stewart has donated her vans
to gain money for the charity
that relies on selling donated shoes to
raise the funds. She has also
supported Oxfam and redcross in her
philanthropist ways. She is also involved in the 'gewa project' which is a charity that raises money for rural Tibey. On December 12 2012, she appeared in the 12-12-12
concert at Madison Square garden
on a pledge to fans and well wishers
to join in the donations towards
the victims of hurricane Sandy. In the
same charity she also donated
her Zuhair Murad dress which she
wore to the last Twilight premeire
for the cause. The glamorous gown
was put up gor auction by the robin
hood foundation and the money
received assisted the victims. Kristen
Stewart was also able to raise
$500,000 for charity to assist the
hurricane Sandy relief efforts, through
a 15 minutes meeting with a
middle Eastern prince. She is also hoping to open a half-way house for sex workers.
